mantle7isking Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission. The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales. Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and that its customers' privacy was being violated. A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users. But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit. "In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote. Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment. Story Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataboutme Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by mantle7isking The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission. The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales. Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and that its customers' privacy was being violated. A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users. But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit. "In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote. Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment. Story Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. The ruling isn't that important because the music providers can just sue you by naming your screen name, then serve then subpoena on verizon and then amend the complaint to have your real name listed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantle7isking Posted December 19 Author Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by whataboutme The ruling isn't that important because the music providers can just sue you by naming your screen name, then serve then subpoena on verizon and then amend the complaint to have your real name listed... What are you a Lawyer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babyfacewrior Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 isn't that where the whole privacy issue they are talking about comes into play...goin from screenname to real name and info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmikebugout Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by whataboutme The ruling isn't that important because the music providers can just sue you by naming your screen name, then serve then subpoena on verizon and then amend the complaint to have your real name listed... good call... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantle7isking Posted December 19 Author Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by whataboutme The ruling isn't that important because the music providers can just sue you by naming your screen name, then serve then subpoena on verizon and then amend the complaint to have your real name listed... That would be good in theory, but if your using kazaa lite you actually are logged in as kazzalite user and have no actual screen name and remain Anonymous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notallthere444 Posted December 19 Report Share Posted December 19 Originally posted by mantle7isking The Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group, has sought to force Verizon Communications and other Internet service providers to reveal the names of customers it suspects may be copying music without permission. The recording industry says the widespread copying of music over the Internet is partially to blame for falling CD sales. Verizon has argued that existing copyright law does not give the recording industry such authority and that its customers' privacy was being violated. A lower court earlier this year upheld the recording industry's tactics, which have served as the basis for hundreds of lawsuits filed against individual Internet users. But in a strongly worded ruling, the appeals court sided with Verizon, saying a 1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit. "In sum, we agree with Verizon that (the law) does not by its terms authorize the subpoenas issued here," Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote. Neither Verizon nor the RIAA was immediately available for comment. Story Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. awesomeAWESOME2THE MAX! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataboutme Posted December 20 Report Share Posted December 20 Originally posted by babyfacewrior isn't that where the whole privacy issue they are talking about comes into play...goin from screenname to real name and info Yeah...But the reason it was wrong was they were dropping subpoenas before they institued the lawsuit. Actually here is what the court said: "1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit." And the answer to your question is yes...Bugout...I hope you know I was just kidding last week...Do you have a job for when youre done or are u clerking??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djmikebugout Posted December 20 Report Share Posted December 20 Originally posted by whataboutme Bugout...I hope you know I was just kidding last week...Do you have a job for when youre done or are u clerking??? i wish....im applying to clerk in NJ (hopefully a northern county cuz i live in westchester as of right now) but we'll see how that goes. I worked with a judge here last year so now im just tryin to get my grades up since first year didnt treat me too kindly I'll PM u...Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantle7isking Posted December 20 Author Report Share Posted December 20 Originally posted by whataboutme Yeah...But the reason it was wrong was they were dropping subpoenas before they institued the lawsuit. Actually here is what the court said: "1998 copyright law does not give copyright holders the ability to subpoena customer names from Internet providers without filing a formal lawsuit." And the answer to your question is yes...Bugout...I hope you know I was just kidding last week...Do you have a job for when youre done or are u clerking??? Its all about DUE PROCESS for EACH actor/customer, but i still think people should drop some coin on some music,its only fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.